Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:




Speaking as an ignorant grunt, does it not scare you ****less that
a 'citizen' is armed in the first place? It's hardly as if he's
fending away Indians from the homestead.

Yeah,like there aren't any criminals running loose preying on
ordinary decent citizens. (ODC's) A person was shot twice with a
small caliber gun in the building next to mine,in my apartment
complex. I heard the gunshots,saw the crooks driving off,gave a
report to the police about it.There's a lot of people who
successfully defend themselves with
firearms
every year(in the US).

Even in the UK,Jill Dando,BBC commentator,was shot and killed on the
London
street,in front of her home.George Harrsion was nearly knifed to
death in his home,even with high security.His wife was also wounded
by the burglar.

Do you expect a elderly lady to defend herself against
larger,stronger young thugs unarmed?
Do you believe that police can be everywhere,to protect
everyone,24/7/365? It's not so.

I see your point, and sincerely, it is convincing. I just think of the
two alternatives - granted a defenceless lady has no capacity to fend
off a burglar and there is no way the police can prevent him from
breaking and entering - which is a sorry state of affairs. However,
were that lady armed with a 9mm, any sensible burglar would still go
to her home taking a pistol with him.

If he believed that she owned a gun,perhaps he would.However,I have read of
many such attempts where the lady or old guy was still able to get to their
gun and either run off the crook,hold them for police,wound them (and they
get caught seeking medical treatment),or kill the crook,even after being
shot themselves.Allowing citizens firearms to defend themselves increases
the risks for the criminals,often to the point they pick some other crime
to commit.And it's far better than just hoping the criminal has good
intentions towards you.

Which is the safer situation for
the lady, neither are pleasant, but I would argue the former.

Replying to Matt Gunsch, I looked into the details:

In the UK for the year 2001 - 2002, there were 23 firearm deaths. In
2000 (not the same year, but close enough) 66% of the 15,517 murders
in America were caused by firearms - that's about 10,000. Even
accounting for the relative population sizes of the two countries,
you're still several orders of magnitude out - and that does not
include the number of accidental deaths caused by firearms in the same
time period.

Yes,but you still ignore the other *non-gun* crime that people in the UK
must endure.For instance,your at-home burglaries are much higher than in
the US.Also,your gun-crime IS increasing.

I see the reasoning behind a free choice to carry a gun in America,
and being a realist I would most likely keep a gun were I to live
there. I just think it a shame that so many are empowered with deadly
force that are so willing to use it.


Hey,sometimes it's a good thing to shoot a criminal.They either get caught
on the spot,or while seeking medical care for their wounds,or get
killed.And thus they commit no further crimes.A service to the public.

But in a free society,it should be the individuals choice to use firearms
to defend themselves.

Jim Doyle

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net






--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:




Speaking as an ignorant grunt, does it not scare you ****less that
a 'citizen' is armed in the first place? It's hardly as if he's
fending away Indians from the homestead.

Yeah,like there aren't any criminals running loose preying on
ordinary decent citizens. (ODC's) A person was shot twice with a
small caliber gun in the building next to mine,in my apartment
complex. I heard the gunshots,saw the crooks driving off,gave a
report to the police about it.There's a lot of people who
successfully defend themselves with
firearms
every year(in the US).

Even in the UK,Jill Dando,BBC commentator,was shot and killed on the
London
street,in front of her home.George Harrsion was nearly knifed to
death in his home,even with high security.His wife was also wounded
by the burglar.

Do you expect a elderly lady to defend herself against
larger,stronger young thugs unarmed?
Do you believe that police can be everywhere,to protect
everyone,24/7/365? It's not so.

I see your point, and sincerely, it is convincing. I just think of the
two alternatives - granted a defenceless lady has no capacity to fend
off a burglar and there is no way the police can prevent him from
breaking and entering - which is a sorry state of affairs. However,
were that lady armed with a 9mm, any sensible burglar would still go
to her home taking a pistol with him.

If he believed that she owned a gun,perhaps he would.However,I have read
of
many such attempts where the lady or old guy was still able to get to
their
gun and either run off the crook,hold them for police,wound them (and they
get caught seeking medical treatment),or kill the crook,even after being
shot themselves.Allowing citizens firearms to defend themselves increases
the risks for the criminals,often to the point they pick some other crime
to commit.And it's far better than just hoping the criminal has good
intentions towards you.

Which is the safer situation for
the lady, neither are pleasant, but I would argue the former.

Replying to Matt Gunsch, I looked into the details:

In the UK for the year 2001 - 2002, there were 23 firearm deaths. In
2000 (not the same year, but close enough) 66% of the 15,517 murders
in America were caused by firearms - that's about 10,000. Even
accounting for the relative population sizes of the two countries,
you're still several orders of magnitude out - and that does not
include the number of accidental deaths caused by firearms in the same
time period.

Yes,but you still ignore the other *non-gun* crime that people in the UK
must endure.For instance,your at-home burglaries are much higher than in
the US.Also,your gun-crime IS increasing.

Firstly, I'd rather be punched than shot, so I'll happily endure the other
non gun crimes in the UK. I have not, in my posts, stated that the UK is
some crime free haven, nor that the US is some 'Escape from New York' style
war-zone. Really, bad people exist in all societies, just in some quite a
few of them have guns.

You are incorrect to state that at-home burglaries are much higher in the
UK. 1,309 domestic burglaries occur per 100,000 population in the US
equating to a 1.3% chance of your VCR ending up in someone's swag bag each
year. Where as in England there is an average of 14.5 domestic burglaries
per 1,000 households - being conservative and assuming just two persons per
household (the average is actually a little over three) - that's 14.5
incidents per 2,000 population, i.e. a 0.73% chance of being burgled.

Simply put, you are at least twice as likely to be burgled in the US than
UK, (although obviously it depends greatly upon the area in which you live,
since these burglaries will not be spread evenly throughout either country's
populace).

http://www.cobras.org/usastats.htm
http://society.guardian.co.uk/social...761948,00.html



I see the reasoning behind a free choice to carry a gun in America,
and being a realist I would most likely keep a gun were I to live
there. I just think it a shame that so many are empowered with deadly
force that are so willing to use it.


Hey,sometimes it's a good thing to shoot a criminal.

Now tell me you're joking; that's just a ridiculous statement. It's never a
good thing to shoot anyone.

It's not as if each citizen receives a thorough briefing on the law when
they purchase their pistol, nor have they been deputised to shoot perps by
the local sheriff . As the judge, jury and literally the executioner, you're
doing as much a disservice to the public as the chap you've just shot. The
most basic appreciation of rudimentary criminal justice yields at least
that.

They either get caught
on the spot,or while seeking medical care for their wounds,or get
killed.And thus they commit no further crimes.A service to the public.

But in a free society,it should be the individuals choice to use firearms
to defend themselves.

Is it correct then that in a free society one person has the right to take
the life of another? Even if that guy is caught red handed rifling through
your smalls, it's indefensible.

Jim Doyle

Speaking as an ignorant grunt, does it not scare you ****less that
a 'citizen' is armed in the first place?

Hardly...but then, I'm not a burglar...
--

-Gord.

Jim Doyle wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote:

Hey,sometimes it's a good thing to shoot a criminal.

Now tell me you're joking; that's just a ridiculous statement. It's never a
good thing to shoot anyone.

Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits
and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that
alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than
the legal mechanics of private gun ownership.

I assure you he is not joking, nor is firearm defense an
innappropriate response to a home invasion. The only one
of your points upon which there will be wide agreement is
that it is never (or rather, rarely) a good thing to shoot
someone - just as it is rarely a good idea to bash in a
person's skull with a bat, or to carve their heart in half
with a kitchen knife.

However, when that person invades your home, clearly with
the intent to do you harm (as in a burglary; murderous
intent need not be present) - the only safe way to ensure
he does not do you physical harm, is with overwhelming
force... and the more efficient/effective your choice of
tools, the better.

It's not as if each citizen receives a thorough briefing on the law when
they purchase their pistol,

You'd be surprised; many states do. (Particularly where
"concealed carry" is available to non-convict and sane
citizens.)

nor have they been deputised to shoot perps by the local sheriff.

No one - including those living where effective means of self-
defense are denied to them - requires deputization in order to
defend themselves from harm.

Is it correct then that in a free society one person has the
right to take the life of another?

If that killing is the only way to defend yourself from harm,
yes - and the tool used to do the deed isn't germane to the
question: a brick can kill you just as dead as a bullet.

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

Jim Doyle wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote:
SNIP
Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits
and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that
alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than
the legal mechanics of private gun ownership.

SNIP

This should be qualified.

The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).

In the UK (also NZ) there is a long history of owning long arms (rifle,
shotgun), and basically they are 'easy' to buy.

In NZ you can use a firearm for self defence... but you must be 'in fear
of ....' for yourself or others. Using deadly force to protect property
is frowned upon. If you do shoot someone... if you shoot them in the
back, expect the police to take you to court. If the person is shot in
the front, depending on circumstances (anything short of fatal), the
police will not proceed. If the shooting is fatal a court (coroners)
must determine whether there is a case to answer. Historically, for a
shot in the front, while in fear of injury case, the court finds
self-defence.

The UK operates in a basically similar way.

From: Kerryn Offord

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

Jim Doyle wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote:
SNIP
Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits
and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that
alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than
the legal mechanics of private gun ownership.

SNIP

This should be qualified.

The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).


Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence? If you do that
you have lost whatever edge you may have over the intruder. If the intruder
intends harm he will follow you outside.

Let's say you have 2 children each in his own room, do you retreat alone, take
the time to grab one or both? In the time it takes to wake one child and
convince him he has to leave his home the badguy is on top of you.

OK, once you get outside then what? If the intruder follows you and is capable
of harming you he will still do so. Fight back once you are outside? With what?
At least you could get to the kitchen and grab a knife inside the home. What
if the resident is unable to defend himself or herself for whatever reason?

Let me ask you a question. Is the life of a criminal more important than yours?
OK, you let the badguy in, what then? You now have NO defense. What if the
badguy decides to rape you, your wife or child? What if he wants to beat a
family member? Don't tell me the family member will get over it, I have seen
life long physical and emotional injuries. Don't think that's bad enough? He's
in a position to kill all of you to eliminate witnesses. Why allow the badguy
to make the dicision to harm you?

You can't shoot to maim or wound because he can sue and probably win. You
really can't wait until his intentions are clear. If you can get him to stop
his attack without shooting do so, if not shoot.

In Florida the magic number is 21 feet. If the badguy has started his attack
and you shoot him dead he is likely to complete his actions up to 21 feet. You
may have a house with 21 foot rooms, most of us don't. The decision to shoot
has to be made in an instant.

In case you are wondering it breaks my heart when accidents happen such as
shooting one's own family member. Personally I want every citizen taught basic
firearms safety even if they are opposed to owning guns. They can use fake
guns. At the very least every child should be taught what to do if they find a
firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: Kerryn Offord
The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).

Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence?

You're not, in the UK. There's a general "duty of retreat" - if someone gets
in your face and shouts insults, you're expected to back off rather than hit
him, and if he pursues then his intentions are obviously hostile - but it's
accepted that once in your own home you've run out of places to retreat to,
and should not be forced to flee.

I gather that doesn't apply in some US states, which is interesting.

--
Paul J. Adam

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

"B2431" wrote:

Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence?

You're not, in the UK. There's a general "duty of retreat" - if someone gets
in your face and shouts insults, you're expected to back off rather than hit
him, and if he pursues then his intentions are obviously hostile - but it's
accepted that once in your own home you've run out of places to retreat to,
and should not be forced to flee.

I gather that doesn't apply in some US states, which is interesting.

Some? Try ALL!!

It's no wonder that so many European countries are
exercising their "duty of retreat". If such a thing
is indeed a legal principle, I imagine it stems from
centuries of nobility/serf contacts, where the poor
sod must never respond in kind to abuse from a nobleman.

B2431 wrote:
From: Kerryn Offord


SNIP

This should be qualified.

The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).



Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence? If you do that
you have lost whatever edge you may have over the intruder. If the intruder
intends harm he will follow you outside.

***
I was talking about the attitude that grabbing a gun is the first
thought, over and above the simple idea of 'getting out of there'.

Where 'getting out of there' means getting out of whatever room the
intruder is in (no need to leave the house, but you can.

Avoiding a confrontation is the safest thing for most people. Your
attitude seems to be.. "there is an intruder, let's go and kill the
SOB". Me, I like to think my first thought, assuming there is nobody
I'll be leaving in danger, is to get out of there and call the police.
Personally, even if I had a gun (well I do, but its safely secured),
will I be able to shoot someone? Rather than confront someone only to
find I can't react swiftly enough, I'll try and avoid confrontation.



Let's say you have 2 children each in his own room, do you retreat alone, take
the time to grab one or both? In the time it takes to wake one child and
convince him he has to leave his home the badguy is on top of you.

***
Having others in the house means you have already reached the limit of
retreat. You can't avoid a confrontation, so make your best move. Just
don't use a hand gun, and that shotgun had better have been secured
before you grabbed it. Think of how the jury would see it.. "I was
defending my children." is a hard one to beat... just try to do it
legally (no illegal weapons kept ready for self defence)... a cricket
bat is a great weapon (a recent case: A man heard his daughter scream.
He grabbed a cricket bat and slammed it into the person standing in the
dark over his daughter's bed.... He was defending his family.. the
police didn't even think of charging him.)


OK, once you get outside then what? If the intruder follows you and is capable
of harming you he will still do so. Fight back once you are outside? With what?
At least you could get to the kitchen and grab a knife inside the home. What
if the resident is unable to defend himself or herself for whatever reason?

***
First off.. you don't have to get outside, just out of the room the
intruder is in.. If he/she follows... well, you tried to avoid
confrontation....

But anyway... there are neighbours... they are usually willing to
answer the door when someone knocks on it (the won't even shoot you as
you walk up the front path)...

If the resident is unable to defend themselves for some reason, why
would they want to confront the intruder?

And, you want to attack someone using a kitchen knife? No thanks... to
much chance of getting hurt (I have a 'stick').

There is no reason you can't grab a weapon as you withdraw from
confrontation... just that it shouldn't be a hand gun (of course the
only handgun/intruder shooting resulted in the death of the intruder (he
was armed with a VHS cassette) and not much happened to the householder
(in spite of all the laws he broke using a handgun.) If someone
follows.. well, you tried to avoid confrontation...


Let me ask you a question. Is the life of a criminal more important than yours?
OK, you let the badguy in, what then? You now have NO defense. What if the
badguy decides to rape you, your wife or child? What if he wants to beat a
family member? Don't tell me the family member will get over it, I have seen
life long physical and emotional injuries. Don't think that's bad enough? He's
in a position to kill all of you to eliminate witnesses. Why allow the badguy
to make the dicision to harm you?

***
You are assuming that if there is an intruder it is a case of his life
or mine... that might be how it is in the USA, its not what its like in
NZ. There are very few intruder crimes in NZ (most burglaries are when
the house is unoccupied. Most intruders, as soon as they realize someone
is up and about will do a runner.

There is no need to let an intruder into your house. You can defend the
door. You can probably even get away with threatening to shoot someone
to keep them out. I'm assuming the person has gained entry to the
house... in that case, you want to think about getting out of there (if
discovery doesn't cause them to do a runner)...



You can't shoot to maim or wound because he can sue and probably win. You
really can't wait until his intentions are clear. If you can get him to stop
his attack without shooting do so, if not shoot.

***
In NZ, if I shoot someone other than when they are running away, (or
even walking away).. i.e., they are potentially a threat, I can shoot
them and they cannot sue me.... as long as a jury considers it
reasonable force.


In Florida the magic number is 21 feet. If the badguy has started his attack
and you shoot him dead he is likely to complete his actions up to 21 feet. You
may have a house with 21 foot rooms, most of us don't. The decision to shoot
has to be made in an instant.

***
Biggest "room" (open plan dining/lounge) is about 30' long, Everything
else will be less than 21'.

This assumes you have a firearm to hand. Do you always carry a loaded
firearm around your house? Me? I don't. If someone is in the house I'm
going to make a noise and if that doesn't scare them away, I'll find
something I can swing (stick, rolled up magazine or newspaper)...
meanwhile I'll be calling the Police. Personally I just wouldn't think
of using a gun.


In case you are wondering it breaks my heart when accidents happen such as
shooting one's own family member. Personally I want every citizen taught basic
firearms safety even if they are opposed to owning guns. They can use fake
guns. At the very least every child should be taught what to do if they find a
firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that.


***
The thing is, care to guess how many incidents there are in NZ where a
house holder accidentally shoots a member of their household? I think
the same number applies to UK, and probably even Australia.

As I said, its a matter of attitude. In NZ and probably UK and Oz.
Firearms are not the first response to an intruder.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: Kerryn Offord

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

Jim Doyle wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote:
SNIP
Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits
and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that
alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than
the legal mechanics of private gun ownership.

SNIP

This should be qualified.

The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).


Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence? If you do
that
you have lost whatever edge you may have over the intruder. If the
intruder
intends harm he will follow you outside.

Let's say you have 2 children each in his own room, do you retreat alone,
take
the time to grab one or both? In the time it takes to wake one child and
convince him he has to leave his home the badguy is on top of you.

OK, once you get outside then what? If the intruder follows you and is
capable
of harming you he will still do so. Fight back once you are outside? With
what?
At least you could get to the kitchen and grab a knife inside the home.
What
if the resident is unable to defend himself or herself for whatever
reason?

Let me ask you a question. Is the life of a criminal more important than
yours?
OK, you let the badguy in, what then? You now have NO defense. What if the
badguy decides to rape you, your wife or child? What if he wants to beat a
family member? Don't tell me the family member will get over it, I have
seen
life long physical and emotional injuries. Don't think that's bad enough?
He's
in a position to kill all of you to eliminate witnesses. Why allow the
badguy
to make the dicision to harm you?


No, the life of a criminal of the type you describe is worthless. Genuinely.
Yet there is a distinction between him and some random hard-up opportunist
burglar with a family to feed. Granted, he's in the wrong - but not
deserving of a death sentence. The sole problem I have is with the very
blurred distinction between the two, and the trigger happy nature with which
a large number of Americans (taking Usenet posters as my only regular
contact with Americans) seem happy to deal with in these situations.

Again, I think this boils down largely to a difference between our two
countries. Although the UK has crime, just as any other country, I have
never heard in all my years of such an incident as you describe above.
Although sadly, there's always a possibility that this may happen, we do not
live in fear of such horrors. If you do in America, then I completely
understand your motives for owning a weapon for home defence. But do you
really live in fear of this?

Can I ask of the circumstances you found yourself in when you drew your
weapon?


You can't shoot to maim or wound because he can sue and probably win. You
really can't wait until his intentions are clear. If you can get him to
stop
his attack without shooting do so, if not shoot.

In Florida the magic number is 21 feet. If the badguy has started his
attack
and you shoot him dead he is likely to complete his actions up to 21 feet.
You
may have a house with 21 foot rooms, most of us don't. The decision to
shoot
has to be made in an instant.

In case you are wondering it breaks my heart when accidents happen such as
shooting one's own family member. Personally I want every citizen taught
basic
firearms safety even if they are opposed to owning guns. They can use fake
guns. At the very least every child should be taught what to do if they
find a
firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that.

That's interesting and refreshing to see, genuinely. I have taken the
impression from the majority of post over the past couple of days that there
is a general blasé attitude toward firearms and killing in the US. I have
very limited knowledge of the NRA, but from what I can see they seem to
promote firearm awareness and safety - which can't be bad in anyone's book.
Are all firearms owners in the US members of the NRA?

Jim Doyle



Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired